Hey, Republicans! Demography is destiny!

Mitt Romney took an enormous gamble about a year ago: he would run very far to the right on immigration policy, alienating the fastest growing segment of the American electorate on purpose, in order to secure the Republican Party’s nomination. Then, he hoped to be able to avoid a drubbing from Latino voters in the general election.

(Snip)

It was an offhand comment made in August, but one of the more important quotes of 2012 came from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who conceded, “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

The question then becomes what the party intends to do about it. As the party does some wound-licking and soul-searching, I might suggest putting this at the top of the to-do list. If party leaders think “self-deportation” is the appropriate solution, they can expect to see more results like yesterday’s.

Share:

9 Comments

I had written off Dick Morris as a right wing crock after his prediction of a Romney landslide. But his column today is insightful and mirror’s Pat’s statistics.

“The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.

In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.

I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.”

…

“By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote. (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13) Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win. He almost did. But not quite. ”

I think that white voters in the South are wondering why white voters in the North are so stupid. Judging by the result of some local races, good question. Finance trumps all when nations, or states, deflate.

Wow, that bar graph is amazing. I don’t know if that is pertaining to nationwide voting or local voting, but there is no question why the graph would apply to national voting. What could have possibly happened between the race in 2004 and 2008 to make Latino voters go so far to the left? Oh wait, I know, a black candidate! Are people so brain dead to believe that there is any other significant meaning to this. Here is news for you…..if a Latino was to run in 2016, he or she would probably get 90 percent of the vote from Latinos or more. I know what you are thinking, “what a racist comment”. My reply would be get a clue, it is what it is. Of most of the reasons black voters voted for Obama, one of the top reasons were that he was black…..period. In addition, Democrats are softer on immigration. Wow, this article is ground breaking….simply amazing.

Blacks have been voting heavily for the Democratic ticket for generations. Back in the early days of the 20th century, they voted mostly for Republicans. That was when the Republican Party was still the party of Lincoln. But times have changed since Southern segregationists (Strom Thurmond and others) left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. Most blacks then changed their allegiance to the Democrats.

However, it can’t be said that blacks will always vote for a black candidate over a white candidate. When Rahm Emanuel, a white guy, ran for mayor of Chicago last year, he won all of the predominately black wards in the city — despite the fact that one of his opponents, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, is black. As the Chicago Sun-Times put it: “Emanuel appeared to be the ‘consensus candidate’ of the black community.”

So much for your implication that blacks always vote for black candidates.

Another thing you apparently don’t know is that whites generally vote for Republicans in presidential elections. Since World War II, only one Democratic presidential candidate — Lyndon Johnson in 1964 — has carried the white vote.

You also seemed to be surprised that Latino voters increasingly are going for Democratic presidential candidates. It’s simple: The Republican Party has becoming increasingly xenophobic and anti-immigrant. Most Latinos are in favor of the Dream Act. So are most Democrats. But most Republicans oppose it. Consequently, most Latinos don’t vote for Republicans. They vote for Democrats.

First off, I did not say blacks ALWAYS vote for blacks. I said most blacks voted for Obama based on the color of his skin. More specific, for being the first black POTUS. You went on to discuss blacks historically voting for Democrats, and that is fine. So it sounds like you are saying that blacks would vote for Obama regardless because he is a Democrat. That is fine also. I am saying that most of the black people I talked to, read about, and watch on the news were elated that they finally had a black President. In 1988, Jessie Jackson received damn near every black vote. If you don’t want to think that these two lopsided periods of black voting (three if you want to include 2012) were because of something other than the color of their skin, that is your porogative. Just as it is for black US citizens to vote for whoever they please. From my perspective, the black vote in America in 1988, 2008, and 2012 were because the candidate was black. Thanks for throwing in the mayor of Chicago, but I think that the Presiedent of the US is a little more significant than the mayor of Chicago. No disrespect to the state of Chicago, oops, I mean the city of Chicago. Sometimes I forget which is the city and which is the state.

I apparently do not know that whites vote for Republicans? How do you come to that conclusion based on anything I said? I made a C in government, but actually realized on my own that a large portion of whites do vote for Republicans. That still does not change what I said, which is most blacks voted for Obama based on the color of his skin. I have no doubt that regardless of anything I say, you will rebut this statement. So be it.

And lastly, you say I am surprised that Latinos voted for a Democrat. If you read my comment, I said that Democrats are soft on immigration. I didn’t use cool words like xenophobic, but I agree with you. Still,immigration was a pretty hot topic in 2004 as well. So, why the huge jump in 2008? I say because it was a black president, and Latino’s trust a black President more than they would a white President to have their back. Again, they have the right to vote for whoever they wish by being a US citizen.

For fun, I asked many of my black friends in 2008 if they voted for Obama. About 20 of them that I asked said yes.around half of them never previously voted. I then asked if a big reason they voted for him was because you would like to see a black president in the White House. About half said yes, the other half said “hell yeah”. Listen Pat, say what you want about Lincoln and history. I agree with you on immigration playing a huge part in it, and times have definately changed. To deny that a big reason that Obama got “most” (not all) of his votes from Latinos and blacks for reasons other than the color of his skin……well…..I just disagree.

The comments here are amazing. I agree that Romney went too far to the Right, when he should ran as his own man. The Party System is one of the biggest problems, along with the lack of full public campaign finance. If we eliminate those 2 traditions, maybe we can get candidates that are beholding to the people, and not the Parites, the rich and the Corporations. Yes, public campaign finance would cost a lot, but with the candidates free of committments they feel they have to fulfill, maybe we can get a more honest government, oriented to serving “We The People”, and doing what is right for America, not their masters under the current system. No more $900 toilet seats please.
As far as how different races vote, maybe some are voting by race, but to say all of them are is racism in itself. It is also saying they are not intelligent enough to make an informed decision. That isn’t applesauce, it’s horse hockey. Anyone that thinks one Party is better than another is stuck in the idiotic box of, “my family has voted(insert Party here) for generations, and so I am going to vote the same. Now that is a person who isn’t intelligent enough to make an intelligent and informed decision. People complain about deadlock in Government, no compromise, while at the same time pulling those levers by Party, instead of for the best candidate. I would have preferred Romney and his business experience, plus his record as Governor of Mass. and head of th IOC. I think he would have been his own man if elected. But I also think that now that Barack Obama is basically a lame duck, can’t run again, we will see a new Obama. Don’t be so sure that when he makes that call to Romney, he won’t be offering the soon to be open Secretary of the Treasury position. He did say he wants to discuss how “we can move forward together”.
And then there’s immigration. Only an idiot would think that people would voluntarily go back to wherever they came from, or that the government can round up millions of illegal immigrants. First off, let’s be honest. The current uproar is about Mexicans, and so the current policy is blatant racism. What if the Native Americans had an INS and rejected all Europeans? Where would you be right now? It will take the wisdom of Solomon to create a viable immigration system and solve this Gordian Knot, but it must be done. But as long as the electorate continues to act like children on a playground, and spends time going na-na-na, nothing will be acomplished beyond continuing to keep the Country split. When we all go to our politicians websites, click that Contact button, and let them know we are watching, and we are their bosses, and will vote them out if they don’t start doing what is best for the United States and “We the People”, then we might see real change. And let them know your thoughts, opinions and ideas, just make sure they are intelligent or they will never get to your Senator, Representative or the President. Also keep after your State pols. It is time to take responsibility for our jobs, being their bosses. Otherwise, don’t complain, you will only get what you have earned and deserve.
To clear the air, I am a 63 year old white male, retired and have voted for the best candidate, even though both sides of my family were staunch Republicans for generations. You have a brain, use it constructively or shut the H..l up.

However,spite of all the astute comments I have read so far, this 2016 Presidential Election will bring to some of us another surprise with the presence of Hillary Rh.Clinton in the Race. While this will not be a surprise for the World since they are expecting it to happen. We have no doubt that she will be the Candidate of the hour not only for the Women but also for the Minorities black, Latinos and white “hormis” her high qualifications and experience in the Diplomatic World and her connections/Network with the “Have-not’s” on the face of the Globe mingled with her husband Bill Clinton, as the World most appreciated President of our time in United States of America.